Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!

Maybe you should think before you post or post something useful or informative and you wouldn't repeatedly find yourself in these positions. OTOH you could always find a forum where everyone agrees with you just make sure it's not
one where anybody actually knows something about the subject or at least TV's anyway and you will do just fine

What? Maybe you should not ride the bench and try to claim to still be part of the game. Then take all the interviews after.

That analogy is sports. I watch those on television. Oops. Did I cross that line again?

Where is your chart. I mean your post should be mandated to have charts. That is rediculous.

Those are the sorts of things I do not see on my old 50PH9UK, from any distance you view the panel there is no crawling dots, no repeating patterns, no breakup of edges, no noisy trails following objects, the color is good the motion is good and its just very relaxing to watch like a plasma should be, fortunately or unfortunately my sister is using that one now so I am getting use to the deeper blacks on my neopdp but there is no denying the old panel does certain things better

Agreed. Appears the new plasmas may have better specs, but less picture quality....at least problems not seen in the Panasonic commercial UY sets from a decade ago.

Everyone was shocked to learn that DLP had horrible motion res, YET everyone preferred to LCD because of it's instant pixel refresh. Funny how things come around in circles.

Case closed?

I'm satisfied. and happy to hear the result too. cause I've seen my share of displays with 'good motion resolution' and in all honesty thought they all had terrible motion when I watch stuff. if I had one complaint about my f8500, it would be it kinda sucks for panning shots. so I'm just glad to hear that doing well on the motion resolution test isn't actually a strong indicator. cause if it was, that'd mean I'm not even happy with the best.

so, can all you guys with plenty of money please buy oleds. I'd really hate to find out more ppl spent 10grand on 85" UHD lcd's, and Samsung doesn't want to release any more oleds because the 'market doesn't want them'...

Maybe. Or it proves the audience participating was partial to plasma. Could of been a real factor.

Also had uhd material been played would the plasma still have displayed a better picture? We won't know. But I have a great guess.

The uhd sets are upscaling the content so your voting the best of plasma vs the upscale of a uhd set.

Yet if there was a smurfs 2 1080p running on the plasma and smurfs 2 uhd running from netflix on the curve would you still see the same results?

I think there are plenty of issues with how the sets were compared. It was not here are the strengths of these vs these. It was we made these patterns to do this. This video test the issue of this. This issue. That issue.

obviously, I can only speak for myself, but there are a few fundamental issues with LED backlighting that I just can't get past. even with local dimming, they aren't using enough zones for it to work well enough. the quality of the panel they put in front only does so much. in the end I find I simply can't enjoy lcd in a dark room.

now, I agree in regards to UHD vs 1080p, they didn't really do anything, or have a rating that would show an advantage for UHD. in that sense, I would expect a 1080p lcd to have faired equally well as the uhd lcd's at the shootout. this could definitely be seen as a disadvantage to the UHD displays there. but on the other hand, it was possibly the most real-world scenario, as getting native UHD material(other than stuff you shot yourself) is unlikely to become mainstream for many ppl for another year at least.

but again, this competition is not to find out what the best overall display is. this competition is to find out what the best display to watch reference material in a 'theater' environment is. at present, that means watching blurays in the dark. that is essentially how I watch all my TV's, so this comparison is pretty darn valid for me, and I agree with most of the findings. but I can totally understand how somebody who watches in different conditions would have issues with how the testing was done. I wouldn't care much about a review of a car done in the summer around a track if I intended to buy one for driving through the snow in the winter. but that doesn't mean the test was flawed, or biased. just geared toward a different user

obviously, I can only speak for myself, but there are a few fundamental issues with LED backlighting that I just can't get past. even with local dimming, they aren't using enough zones for it to work well enough. the quality of the panel they put in front only does so much. in the end I find I simply can't enjoy lcd in a dark room.

now, I agree in regards to UHD vs 1080p, they didn't really do anything, or have a rating that would show an advantage for UHD. in that sense, I would expect a 1080p lcd to have faired equally well as the uhd lcd's at the shootout. this could definitely be seen as a disadvantage to the UHD displays there. but on the other hand, it was possibly the most real-world scenario, as getting native UHD material(other than stuff you shot yourself) is unlikely to become mainstream for many ppl for another year at least.

but again, this competition is not to find out what the best overall display is. this competition is to find out what the best display to watch reference material in a 'theater' environment is. at present, that means watching blurays in the dark. that is essentially how I watch all my TV's, so this comparison is pretty darn valid for me, and I agree with most of the findings. but I can totally understand how somebody who watches in different conditions would have issues with how the testing was done. I wouldn't care much about a review of a car done in the summer around a track if I intended to buy one for driving through the snow in the winter. but that doesn't mean the test was flawed, or biased. just geared toward a different user

In other forums I like to say to search YouTube. 4k red epic. Uhd. Etc those are the content I meant. I agree there is not a whole lot of content. But there are quite a few mastered in 4k blurays out there. Netflix is at least up and running. Not a lot there.

But if you search the 4k red epic videos those will demonstrate what I mean. There is no way a 1080p tv is beating a uhd tv displaying uhd content.

YouTube shows in uhd on my set. I just meant things like that. I watched the same videos for a year before I got my 2014 uhd set.

In other forums I like to say to search YouTube. 4k red epic. Uhd. Etc those are the content I meant. I agree there is not a whole lot of content. But there are quite a few mastered in 4k blurays out there. Netflix is at least up and running. Not a lot there.

youtube is terrible kbit starved and mastered in 4K is just a way to get more sells.
and even with 4K sources CR doesn't change color accurey is still the same and motion too.
and even if they sell 4K at netflix that doesn't mean it is worth it right now. they need way over 4k cameras first to get proper 4K/UHD mastered series and movies.
the youtube clips are all reencoded to about 17 mbit for UHD or 4K at about 30 fps that's not a lot. there is a good reason they use low motion for UHD clips on youtube.

UHD can do way better than these youtube clips.

for example the "RED Epic - HDRx Tests (in 4K)" has a lot of blocking banding and the sky look awful with 11.4 mbit no wonder.

In other forums I like to say to search YouTube. 4k red epic. Uhd. Etc those are the content I meant. I agree there is not a whole lot of content. But there are quite a few mastered in 4k blurays out there. Netflix is at least up and running. Not a lot there.

But if you search the 4k red epic videos those will demonstrate what I mean. There is no way a 1080p tv is beating a uhd tv displaying uhd content.

YouTube shows in uhd on my set. I just meant things like that. I watched the same videos for a year before I got my 2014 uhd set.

there's enough out there to get a taste of the potential, and what the FUTURE will look like for those displays. but I don't even like watching 1080p stuff online right now(sometimes it get choppy, most of the time its way too compressed), and I'm not in a solid market that's going to get a lot of early UHD support. I expect a disc-based format will be my first real experience with UHD.

as for UHD vs 1080p, I agree, that all else being equal, UHD should win. which means I expect LG's UHD oled to be a little better then the 1080p oled, and I expect the UHD lcd's to be a little better than the 1080P lcds. if we ever get the increased bit depth, color gamut, frame rates, or HDR that could also be part of UHD, then that advantage gets even larger.

however, 1080p plasma/oled vs UHD lcd, I personally find the plasma/oled beats lcd of any resolution. and that's why I'm not surprised with the results of the shootout.

"Mastered in 4K" blu-rays are actually 1080p. So, you could display them on any 1080p (or greater) display, including plasmas and OLED's. They just use a slightly larger color gamut (xvYCC) and are a little less compressed than non-"Mastered in 4K" blu-rays. I don't think it would be particularly useful to use one as testing material in a shootout like this, particularly since only the Sony's can actually handle the larger color space and the selection isn't large enough to make up the majority of your content. As with actual UHD 4K content, if there was enough of it available that one could actually spend the majority of their viewing time watching it then it would be more relevant.

Given the current state of UHD content, I am ok with the fact that it wasn't used in this shootout. Hopefully, next year there will be enough content to justify using it as testing material. Then we will get to see how UHD LED/LCD's do against UHD OLED's when it comes to displaying UHD content.

"Mastered in 4K" blu-rays are actually 1080p. So, you could display them on any 1080p (or greater) display, including plasmas and OLED's. They just use a slightly larger color gamut (xvYCC) and are a little less compressed than non-"Mastered in 4K" blu-rays. I don't think it would be particularly useful to use one as testing material in a shootout like this, particularly since only the Sony's can actually handle the larger color space and the selection isn't large enough to make up the majority of your content. As with actual UHD 4K content, if there was enough of it available that one could actually spend the majority of their viewing time watching it then it would be more relevant.

Given the current state of UHD content, I am ok with the fact that it wasn't used in this shootout. Hopefully, next year there will be enough content to justify using it as testing material. Then we will get to see how UHD LED/LCD's do against UHD OLED's when it comes to displaying UHD content.

Of course they are not 4k blurays. Can we all agree to a certain level of common sense in these forums?

youtube is terrible kbit starved and mastered in 4K is just a way to get more sells.
and even with 4K sources CR doesn't change color accurey is still the same and motion too.
and even if they sell 4K at netflix that doesn't mean it is worth it right now. they need way over 4k cameras first to get proper 4K/UHD mastered series and movies.
the youtube clips are all reencoded to about 17 mbit for UHD or 4K at about 30 fps that's not a lot. there is a good reason they use low motion for UHD clips on youtube.

UHD can do way better than these youtube clips.

for example the "RED Epic - HDRx Tests (in 4K)" has a lot of blocking banding and the sky look awful with 11.4 mbit no wonder.

So your saying my tv doesnt have a chip in it to help decode these videos so they show with little to no artifacts on my tv?

I literally walk into one room and watch the same video on my f8000 and see artifacts that do mot show on my 4k set.

I am not sure you have ever seen a 4k set running youtube uhd. I can tell you not all utube videos are created equal. So one maybe worse than another one.

But videos like, pioneer kuro best look better on my uhd.

New zealand was there. You have many more red epic videos that even make 1080p sets look fantastic. You know about that.

Every owner who takes a minute to watch the videos will know that.

Yes youtube has horrible streaming levels. Again can we not act like people are babies who have just bought their first tv. Can we agree to a level of common sense.

Does youtube have those videos. Can i use the app in my tv in specific not other sources of youtube.

Not a pc. Not an xbox or ps4.

The tv youtube app. Can i watch uhd youtube in that app. Not one question mark. Its yes. Yes i can. It looks better.

Netflix in the tv.

Does netflix in the tv have a uhd channel. Yes. Yes it does. It looks better.

Does netflix anywhere else have a uhd channel? No. I admit its not growing very quickly though.

There is content. That content is best displayed by the tv and its internal apps.

The same content you see in the 1080 utube is in uhd in my tv's utube.

And some are just bad kbit not handling a taxing video i know that.

And is it not that uhd already has a broader range of color when displayed on a uhd set? Better color transition. Creating detail from the color that was once missing? Because i see it.

F8000 vs hu9000. I see it every single day. The hu9000 looks better. With that content.

Maybe. Or it proves the audience participating was partial to plasma. Could of been a real factor.

Also had uhd material been played would the plasma still have displayed a better picture? We won't know. But I have a great guess.

The uhd sets are upscaling the content so your voting the best of plasma vs the upscale of a uhd set.

Yet if there was a smurfs 2 1080p running on the plasma and smurfs 2 uhd running from netflix on the curve would you still see the same results?

I think there are plenty of issues with how the sets were compared. It was not here are the strengths of these vs these. It was we made these patterns to do this. This video test the issue of this. This issue. That issue.

What happened at the shootout is all the hype about how UHD/4K somehow makes LCD perform better in 2014 turned out to be bunk. In that room, you become partial to plasma, and OLED, because the (relative) inadequacy of even the best, most expensive Samsung and Sony UHDTVs is on display, and it's not pretty. The gap between OLED/plasma picture quality and LCD was huge. The only thing that redeems the LCD-based UHDTVs—at all—is availability in larger sizes, but at what cost?

***UHDTVs and UHD content are two separate issues. Well-produced UHD content, assuming it uses the same amount of compression, will look better than HD content. But, that's only if both displays have the same overall picture quality. Otherwise, when it's a battle between HD and UHD, the display's overall picture quality trumps the content's resolution.

What happened at the shootout is all the hype about how UHD/4K somehow makes LCD perform better in 2014 turned out to be bunk.

I never got the impression that UHD/4K would somehow make LCD's perform better when it comes to displaying test patterns or a small sampling of 1080p content. If LCD's were going to be better this year in those regards, it would have had to come from improved dimming technology to improve black levels and contrast ratio without introducing blooming, motion handling to improve motion resolution without SOE, and panels to improve off axis viewing. If there was anything to be potentially excited about before the shootout, it was the return of FALD and higher clear motion ratings. These are the things that didn't really live up to the hype. Since no 4K material was used and 4K upscaling wasn't given its own category, the resolution increase didn't even come into play. As you said, the only thing the increased resolution accomplished in this particular shootout was to enable them to use larger sizes without the size of the pixels becoming a problem. If they had used 1080p displays at these large sizes, it would have been even worse for the LCD's as people would have complained about the "screen door" effect.

What happened at the shootout is all the hype about how UHD/4K somehow makes LCD perform better in 2014 turned out to be bunk. In that room, you become partial to plasma, and OLED, because the (relative) inadequacy of even the best, most expensive Samsung and Sony UHDTVs is on display, and it's not pretty. The gap between OLED/plasma picture quality and LCD was huge. The only thing that redeems the LCD-based UHDTVs—at all—is availability in larger sizes, but at what cost?

***UHDTVs and UHD content are two separate issues. Well-produced UHD content, assuming it uses the same amount of compression, will look better than HD content. But, that's only if both displays have the same overall picture quality. Otherwise, when it's a battle between HD and UHD, the display's overall picture quality trumps the content's resolution.

Thank you. I didnt mean to ruffle so many feathers. Of course i agree with a 1080p oled.

I dont agree with plasma. My personal choice. Thats it.

But i just mean there is another quality missing from those ratings too.

Another super awesome feature that also works at night time cinematic areas.

I never got the impression that UHD/4K would somehow make LCD's perform better when it comes to displaying test patterns or a small sampling of 1080p content. If LCD's were going to be better this year in those regards, it would have had to come from improved dimming technology to improve black levels and contrast ratio without introducing blooming, motion handling to improve motion resolution, and panels to improve off axis viewing. If there was anything to be potentially excited about before the shootout, it was the return of FALD and higher clear motion ratings. These are the things that didn't really live up to the hype. Since no 4K material was used and 4K upscaling wasn't given its own category, the resolution increase didn't even come into play. As you said, the only thing the increased resolution accomplished in this particular shootout was to enable them to use larger sizes without the size of the pixels becoming a problem. If they had used 1080p displays at these large sizes, it would have been even worse for the LCD's as people would have complained about the "screen door" effect.

So your saying my tv doesnt have a chip in it to help decode these videos so they show with little to no artifacts on my tv?

I literally walk into one room and watch the same video on my f8000 and see artifacts that do mot show on my 4k set.

I am not sure you have ever seen a 4k set running youtube uhd. I can tell you not all utube videos are created equal. So one maybe worse than another one.

But videos like, pioneer kuro best look better on my uhd.

New zealand was there. You have many more red epic videos that even make 1080p sets look fantastic. You know about that.

Every owner who takes a minute to watch the videos will know that.

Yes youtube has horrible streaming levels. Again can we not act like people are babies who have just bought their first tv. Can we agree to a level of common sense.

Does youtube have those videos. Can i use the app in my tv in specific not other sources of youtube.

Not a pc. Not an xbox or ps4.

The tv youtube app. Can i watch uhd youtube in that app. Not one question mark. Its yes. Yes i can. It looks better.

Netflix in the tv.

Does netflix in the tv have a uhd channel. Yes. Yes it does. It looks better.

Does netflix anywhere else have a uhd channel? No. I admit its not growing very quickly though.

There is content. That content is best displayed by the tv and its internal apps.

The same content you see in the 1080 utube is in uhd in my tv's utube.

And some are just bad kbit not handling a taxing video i know that.

And is it not that uhd already has a broader range of color when displayed on a uhd set? Better color transition. Creating detail from the color that was once missing? Because i see it.

F8000 vs hu9000. I see it every single day. The hu9000 looks better. With that content.

don't get me wrong but you don't have a clue about video compression.
so learn how video compression works. look at these "UHD" clips on youtube again and learn they are low quality.

videos on youtube have all the same problem all videos that are uploaded are reencoded by youtube so it doesn't really matter if someone uploads a freaking 400 mbit 60 FPS UHD clip. after youtube is done with it. 1080p is bad quality to so no need to compare these.

Quote:

And is it not that uhd already has a broader range of color when displayed on a uhd set?

the range should be BT 709 if it is higher it is just more bad...

this is like taking a WIDE color gamut display and display a BT 709 video on it while it present this as adobe RGB just wrong everything...

Quote:

But videos like, pioneer kuro best look better on my uhd.

for you not human kind.

Quote:

So your saying my tv doesnt have a chip in it to help decode these videos so they show with little to no artifacts on my tv?

yes it doesn't have a magical staff to make a blocking video to look totally awesome. by the way this is not part of decoding to use a filter to save what is left in the video.

sorry but i have to put your observation skills hard in question after this one.

As mentioned earlier You Tube 4K and Netflix 4K have horribly low bit rates for 4K + bit shaping etc and not to mention plenty of mpeg compression and re encoding and can not really convey a decent 4K or the best 1080p experience because of that neither can 2160p/30 in all cases

Think of Netflix and You Tube 4K as mp3 4K and 1080p if you will although in You Tube case it's H .264 mp4 or mostly VP9 now and I believe a propriety HEVC variable bit rate encode for Netflix all lossey compression like mp3. only video often with compressed audio also . You tube UHD (VP9 or H.265 probably isn't any better on a TV iptv browser than it would ve on a PC that outputs 2160p/60 or probably even 2160p/30 or arguably not significantly better than a PC @ 1080/p 60 with a good scaler like you would see in decent iGPU or discrete GPU .

As mentioned earlier here ,Lots of good Sony,Samsung ,Panasonic and LG 2K/4K eye candy Demo loop downloads to be had here one can even play them at 1080p or 2160p/XX from a PC and as noted earlier here maybe or maybe not realize a slightly better than Blue Ray experience if your TV and panel supports YCbCr 4:4:4 or 0-255 color palate ( color profile) Blue Ray uses YCbCr 4:2:2 16-235 color profile a lot of that depends on quite a few things I don't even understand .

Either way in any event these download Demos are very decent and much better than anything you could ever hope to see on You Tube , Netflix or any ip video stream . Think a fast metal hdd transfer rate potential of ~ 80 MB/s more and a Netflix 4K iptv HEVEC bit rate throughput of maybe 15 Mbps under good conditions and a similar bit rate for You tube 4K VP9 not even close .

From a PC You have to set YCbCr 4:4:4 output at GPU/iGPU GUI ,Supporting TV decodes it automatically when present .
some sets and game consoles support that , in some cases on some displays it can degrade the image in which case a YCbCr 4:2:2 or RGB 16-235 setting would be better .

One should be able to play the UHD demo files in 1080p/ 2160p/30 / (2160P/60 if your PC GPU has the stones) just fine also no real fast motion just plenty slow moving way cool eye candy

UHD Demo Files should also play on properly formatted USB
(FAT 32 or exFAT 32 formatted ) flash drives on some sets also most are 1GB or under so FAT 32 should be fine

For PC playback VLC would be the video player of choice WMC won't play a lot of them.

One advantage to these downloaded demos are much higher bit rate transfers from hdd than one would ever see from an iptv ,ip Netflix ,You tube or any iptv, ip video stream and probably much lower compression settings .

There may be some with proprietary encodes/containers that may not play in VLC , not to many though most of them are duplicated in MP4 or something anyway so I wouldn't be concerned about that if they don't play in VLC I would just just move on .

Link as posted earlier here by somebody (s) and afterwards probably me also

don't get me wrong but you don't have a clue about video compression.
so learn how video compression works. look at these "UHD" clips on youtube again and learn they are low quality.

videos on youtube have all the same problem all videos that are uploaded are reencoded by youtube so it doesn't really matter if someone uploads a freaking 400 mbit 60 FPS UHD clip. after youtube is done with it. 1080p is bad quality to so no need to compare these.

the range should be BT 709 if it is higher it is just more bad...

this is like taking a WIDE color gamut display and display a BT 709 video on it while it present this as adobe RGB just wrong everything...

for you not human kind.

yes it doesn't have a magical staff to make a blocking video to look totally awesome. by the way this is not part of decoding to use a filter to save what is left in the video.

sorry but i have to put your observation skills hard in question after this one.

Your right about compression. I have never claimed to have the amount of knowledge you do. So thanks for belittling me. You do it every time consistent at the superiority complex arent you now.

Second you dont know and thats the honest truth. You can say all you want that the manufacturers have not included the hardware to do these things yet they happen.

You dont even have a 4k set. Let alone the set i have. But you say im wrong and the world agrees with you.

Get off your dead horse and into today.

You have nothing. No 4k set. No 4k expiriences to give an honest opinion about but you hang out in 4k threads to cause bs with uhd.

Its clear you spend a lot of time in 4k threads. putting down 4k. Odd hobby to have.

YouTube and Netflix 4k/UHD video can look good if the subject matter has little to no motion, limited contrast, and/or a limited selection of colors. If the subject matter meets these conditions then it is fairly easy to compress the video without noticeable loss of quality. Unfortunately, one can only watch so many clips of grass growing before one wants to slit one's wrists.

YouTube and Netflix 4k/UHD video can look good if the subject matter has little to no motion, limited contrast, and/or a limited selection of colors. If the subject matter meets these conditions then it is fairly easy to compress the video without noticeable loss of quality. Unfortunately, one can only watch so many clips of grass growing before one wants to slit one's wrists.

link me one good 4k clip from youtube.

even for grass the mbit is to low. I wonder why people don't see that.

Agreed. Appears the new plasmas may have better specs, but less picture quality....at least problems not seen in the Panasonic commercial UY sets from a decade ago.

People forget how miserable black levels were in the original plasmas. The black levels in my Fujitsu plasmas (the best of their time) would be laughed at today. In fact, they would make many of today's LEDs look quite good from the perspective of MLLs. How soon we forget.

To watch on your 1080p set. Not utilizing any of the upscale ability of the chip in the tv which has been tested in the owners forum and found to produce a better picture than the oppo system, madVR, or any other upscale tech.

Yet you dont care that the tv has an internal eco system for uhd and how it gets displayed.

So anyways....

They didnt consider the uhd for any merit. You agree with it. We dont. You have never expirienced the internal uhd system at work but proudly tell us we are wrong.

youtube is terrible kbit starved and mastered in 4K is just a way to get more sells.
and even with 4K sources CR doesn't change color accurey is still the same and motion too.
and even if they sell 4K at netflix that doesn't mean it is worth it right now. they need way over 4k cameras first to get proper 4K/UHD mastered series and movies.
the youtube clips are all reencoded to about 17 mbit for UHD or 4K at about 30 fps that's not a lot. there is a good reason they use low motion for UHD clips on youtube.

UHD can do way better than these youtube clips.

for example the "RED Epic - HDRx Tests (in 4K)" has a lot of blocking banding and the sky look awful with 11.4 mbit no wonder.

You guys really need to see the quality of the output of a camera like the prosumer Sony AX100. It puts anything YouTube to shame and in fact, holds up quite well to some of the better UHD demos you see in stores. I've been asked by regional Sony reps at least three times for copies of my personal 4K videos. You don't need megabuck cameras to produce awesome 4K.

You guys really need to see the quality of the output of a camera like the prosumer Sony AX100. It puts anything YouTube to shame and in fact, holds up quite well to some of the better UHD demos you see in stores. I've been asked by regional Sony reps at least three times for copies of my personal 4K videos. You don't need megabuck cameras to produce awesome 4K.

Your right about compression. I have never claimed to have the amount of knowledge you do. So thanks for belittling me. You do it every time consistent at the superiority complex arent you now.

I happen to agree with this and it's a problem all too common to some posters on AVS. There's a nice way to tell someone you disagree with them or think they're wrong and then there's a not so nice way. It would be nice if before hitting the 'submit reply' button, people looked at their post to see if perhaps the wording could be a bit 'gentler'. I've been guilty of this myself.

You guys really need to see the quality of the output of a camera like the prosumer Sony AX100. It puts anything YouTube to shame and in fact, holds up quite well to some of the better UHD demos you see in stores. I've been asked by regional Sony reps at least three times for copies of my personal 4K videos. You don't need megabuck cameras to produce awesome 4K.

I absolutely agree. The AX100 handles like a dream and produces stunning video compared. I look forward to a Sony Alpha with UHD/4K recording capability.

You guys really need to see the quality of the output of a camera like the prosumer Sony AX100. It puts anything YouTube to shame and in fact, holds up quite well to some of the better UHD demos you see in stores. I've been asked by regional Sony reps at least three times for copies of my personal 4K videos. You don't need megabuck cameras to produce awesome 4K.

isn't that what I'm saying?

you need a better source for UHD, youtube is a joke in term of quality.

The link appears to be to a top/bottom 3D image. I'm not sure that a 3D image makes the best 4K example, even if it is 3840x2160. AFAIK, most displays can't display an actual 3D 2160p image. Most can only do a 3D 1080p or 2D 2160p image. In any case, I don't have access to a 4K display atm, but I will try copying the file to view at a later time.

As far as YouTube 4K videos go...again, I don't have full access to a UHD display atm, so can't recommend any particular video without having viewed it first. However, there are very good looking demo videos provided by the 4K TV manufacturers or some random guy with a 4K camera which use bit rates that would be compatible with YouTube, so it is possible. I'm sure you would have to sift through a lot of overly compressed junk to find them on YouTube, though.